Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

the beer revolu · 30-04-2021 11:07AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

Is there not a certain element of price co-ordination going on in pubs... with stocking Heineken Zero at same price at full Heineken, even though zero attracts no excise?

I don't know how the government could tackle this unless there is evidence of organised price fixing.
Pubs can charge as they see fit.

the beer revolu · 30-04-2021 11:10AM

Antares35 wrote: »

Didn't they come up with some bull**** excuse before that it costs extra to remove the alcohol and that's why the prices are on par. We've come a long way from the "here's a free club orange for the designated driver"!

It does cost more to produce alcohol free beer than regular beer. No mistruth there.
However, that difference would be way more than offset by the lack of duty on 0% beer.

Thelonious Monk · 30-04-2021 11:13AM

the beer revolu wrote: »

The government don't set the price of beers (or much else).
There is 0 duty on 0% beers.

How do you suggest that the price is fixed?

They are pretty dear for what they are, although Aldi do a great non alc IPA and a non alc lager called Rossini (both are 0.5% actually) and they are really good and priced at 1.20 and 99c for 500ml.

There are a few Irish craft beer places making non alc beers but they charge the same as their alcoholic ones so they can piss off.

ohnonotgmail · 30-04-2021 11:17AM

the beer revolu wrote: »

It does cost more to produce alcohol free beer than regular beer. No mistruth there.
However, that difference would be way more than offset by the lack of duty on 0% beer.

it is an amazing coincidence that the extra cost of producing alcohol free beer is almost exactly the same as the duty on alcohol.

odyssey06 · 30-04-2021 11:20AM

the beer revolu wrote: »

I don't know how the government could tackle this unless there is evidence of organised price fixing.
Pubs can charge as they see fit.

The government constrains competition by limiting number of licenses and gives pub licensees a privileged position.

And yet supermarkets will not be allowed to charge as they see fit.

Strange they have no qualms about setting a minimum price for alcohol.
They want to reduce alcohol consumption.
Yet the thought of setting a maximum price for soft drinks when sold in a licensed premises or investigating why such soft drinks are priced so high is a bridge too far for them?

Antares35 · 30-04-2021 11:29AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

They want to reduce alcohol consumption.
Yet the thought of setting a maximum price for soft drinks when sold in a licensed premises or investigating why such soft drinks are priced so high is a bridge too far for them?

Ireland has always been all stick and no carrot. It's like we just can't be trusted to do anything right.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-04-2021 11:55AM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

They spend our taxes on NGOs which we didn't even ask for.

Most of those NGOs are religious and delivering public services and it's done because it's always been done that way. The public need to demand an end to it.

They formed a coalition against our wishes when the pandemic hit, an unvoted move.

This is stupid. The public never get a vote on what party goes into coalition with what other party/parties.

Any change to law or government to do with the people should be put to vote and not forced on us.

This is also stupid. We elect representatives to legislate.

The problem is that all political parties and all media appear to have been captured by the MUP bullshít peddlers.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-04-2021 12:01PM

the beer revolu wrote: »

I don't know how the government could tackle this unless there is evidence of organised price fixing.
Pubs can charge as they see fit.

Pubs have been fixing prices since time immemorial. Plenty of publicans have tried to be the guy who had a pint 5p / 10c or whatever cheaper than the rest in their town/area (why do the rest all have the same price in the first place?) and been forced to fall into line.

Antares35 wrote: »

That barrier entry into alcohol sections in shops is ridiculous. Though I do love giving the barrier a good, loud and proud thwack with the trolley as I go in

They are a monument to utter stupidity, it is frightening to think that people who govern us thought this was a wise, necessary and rational measure.

The door in my local Dunnes has been stuck open ever since the first few days and nobody has seen fit to close it :cool:

the beer revolu · 30-04-2021 12:11PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Pubs have been fixing prices since time immemorial. Plenty of publicans have tried to be the guy who had a pint 5p / 10c or whatever cheaper than the rest in their town/area (why do the rest all have the same price in the first place?) and been forced to fall into line.
:

It would be hard to prove that this is in any way organised, though.

Pub A choosing to match the price of pub B is not evidence of organised price fixing.

While yes, it does look like price fixing, I don't think it could be evidenced as such.

patrickbrophy18 · 30-04-2021 12:26PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Most of those NGOs are religious and delivering public services and it's done because it's always been done that way. The public need to demand an end to it.

This is stupid. The public never get a vote on what party goes into coalition with what other party/parties.

This is also stupid. We elect representatives to legislate.

The problem is that all political parties and all media appear to have been captured by the MUP bullshít peddlers.

I don't understand why you refer to my points as stupid.

I'm a firm believer of free market capitalism. No charity group should ever have a say in it. Charity should always be optional. Alcohol Action Ireland are a charity.

The forcing of their puritanical ideals on the public through MUP is a massive virtue signal.

The punishing of the many for the sins of the few is just a lazy cop out and is IMO undemocratic.

Tony EH · 30-04-2021 12:40PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

The government constrains competition by limiting number of licenses and gives pub licensees a privileged position.

And yet supermarkets will not be allowed to charge as they see fit.

Strange they have no qualms about setting a minimum price for alcohol.
They want to reduce alcohol consumption.
Yet the thought of setting a maximum price for soft drinks when sold in a licensed premises or investigating why such soft drinks are priced so high is a bridge too far for them?

Ah yeh, but that's interfering in the free market.

:pac:

Suckit · 30-04-2021 12:56PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Pubs have been fixing prices since time immemorial. Plenty of publicans have tried to be the guy who had a pint 5p / 10c or whatever cheaper than the rest in their town/area (why do the rest all have the same price in the first place?) and been forced to fall into line.

I was trying to find a chart or list of all the price hikes since 1970 last night, but I was tired and kept getting results about MUP.
I was thinking along the lines of the MUP in theory paper.
They surely haven't taken into account a country like Ireland where there are price hikes regularly. This will just be seen as another one of those by most, with the addition that we can now revert back to going up to Newry or wherever and buying cheaper in bulk. Not everyone will go up, but many will, and others will at least once. Anyone that goes up will surely buy as much as they can afford, unless they have gone up specifically for that reason for an upcoming event or party, or something like Christmas, in which case they will buy as many as they can fit in the car.
Others will continue to take the Ferry to France.
For the people that won't go anywhere, it will just be seen as another price hike. They will buy anyway.
For the ones that can barely afford it anyway, they will just beg for a little longer outside the off licence.
It makes no sense to introduce an MUP for 'health' reasons in a country where the cost of living is high anyway, and we are already the most expensive country in the EU for many alcohol products.
"In Theory" it might work in a cheaper country like the ones on the paper, where the cost of living is significantly lower and there are low wages across the board.

the beer revolu · 30-04-2021 01:09PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I don't understand why you refer to my points as stupid.

I'm a firm believer of free market capitalism. No charity group should ever have a say in it. Charity should always be optional. Alcohol Action Ireland are a charity.

The forcing of their puritanical ideals on the public through MUP is a massive virtue signal.

The punishing of the many for the sins of the few is just a lazy cop out and is IMO undemocratic.

The point you refer to here wasn't labelled as stupid.
It was your other points that you ignored here were called stupid.
Those point suggest that you just don't understand how our democratic system works.
(a bit like Sin Fein)

VinLieger · 30-04-2021 02:23PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They are a monument to utter stupidity, it is frightening to think that people who govern us thought this was a wise, necessary and rational measure.

The door in my local Dunnes has been stuck open ever since the first few days and nobody has seen fit to close it :cool:

Dont forget that the current barriers are a downgrade from what was originally in the Public health alcohol bill, the original drafty had the alcohol sections being completely blocked from view by curtains or other barriers in a similar fashion to the way the US used to have XXX sections in video stores behind a curtain.

They claim the barriers are to help reduce alcohol consumption in underage children by keeping it away from them by telling them its a special drink only adults can see and drink. I mean what planet are they even living on, have they met children, have any of their own or even remember what it was like to be a kid? You tell a kid of any age they cant have something they are going to want it even more and will do anything to obtain it.

Antares35 · 30-04-2021 02:38PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Dont forget that the current barriers are a downgrade from what was originally in the Public health alcohol bill, the original drafty had the alcohol sections being completely blocked from view by curtains or other barriers in a similar fashion to the way the US used to have XXX sections in video stores behind a curtain.

They claim the barriers are to help reduce alcohol consumption in underage children by keeping it away from them by telling them its a special drink only adults can see and drink. I mean what planet are they even living on, have they met children, have any of their own or even remember what it was like to be a kid? You tell a kid of any age they cant have something they are going to want it even more and will do anything to obtain it.

And when did it become everyone's responsibility to make sure kids don't see alcohol? What's wrong with having it on view and expecting parents to, you know, parent? Isn't it their job to keep their kids on the straight and narrow as much as they can? Rather than expecting us all to live in some weird society that shields their precious eyes from the devil that is a bottle of rosé sitting on a shelf in a supermarket?

Suckit · 30-04-2021 03:06PM

Aside from anything else, the money would be far better suited educating kids about alcohol, than putting up barriers and the like. I haven't been in France for a while, but the last time I was there I didn't notice any barriers, or curtains in Germany, or notices and walls in Spain.
Wasting money on irrelevant, stupid nonsense.
Part of me wants to meet the genius that came up with it, but knowing that the government went along with it as though they thought they were doing something is worse.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-04-2021 03:18PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I don't understand why you refer to my points as stupid.

Because we don't elect governments and never have. We elect TDs and they decide among themselves who gets to form a government.

I'm a firm believer of free market capitalism. No charity group should ever have a say in it. Charity should always be optional. Alcohol Action Ireland are a charity.

So-called "charities" receiving state funding (does AAI actually fundraise itself at all?) are a disgrace. It's bad enough when they're used to deliver public services (usually badly and with an unwanted side-dish of religion attached) but allowing a government funded body to lobby the government to legislate in its favour is a perversion of democracy.

celvinxen · 30-04-2021 03:21PM

This is purely dictatorship. That means I can't sell my product any price I like whether there are other special things attached to it or not

patrickbrophy18 · 30-04-2021 03:45PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because we don't elect governments and never have. We elect TDs and they decide among themselves who gets to form a government.

I am aware of this. It is precisely why I didn't vote for the 3 parties which I mentioned. Until a new party is formed that will commit to pulling investment on all NGOs, I will continue to not vote.

Continued collusion between NGOs and the government at the expense of the very people that pay their wages smacks of fraud.

Punish the irresponsible and not everyone. Othetwise, it becomes socialism. As Churchill said, "The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries".

CrabRevolution · 30-04-2021 03:47PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Dont forget that the current barriers are a downgrade from what was originally in the Public health alcohol bill, the original drafty had the alcohol sections being completely blocked from view by curtains or other barriers in a similar fashion to the way the US used to have XXX sections in video stores behind a curtain.

They claim the barriers are to help reduce alcohol consumption in underage children by keeping it away from them by telling them its a special drink only adults can see and drink. I mean what planet are they even living on, have they met children, have any of their own or even remember what it was like to be a kid? You tell a kid of any age they cant have something they are going to want it even more and will do anything to obtain it.

As Chief Wiggum put it in the Simpsons:
"Just what is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?"

VinLieger · 30-04-2021 03:50PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Until a new party is formed that will commit to pulling investment on all NGOs, I will continue to not vote.

You understand by not voting at all you are still supporting the status quo of the large parties you claim to be opposed to?

tjhook · 30-04-2021 04:20PM

Suckit wrote: »

"In Theory" it might work in a cheaper country like the ones on the paper, where the cost of living is significantly lower and there are low wages across the board.

Ah now, don't be giving them ideas - "AAI calls for income reductions as a health measure to reduce alcohol consumption"

patrickbrophy18 · 01-05-2021 12:53AM

VinLieger wrote: »

You understand by not voting at all you are still supporting the status quo of the large parties you claim to be opposed to?

Oh, I did vote. But, for parties that are more tax payer friendly which I wont mention as my voting is confidential. I do read the manifestos to get an idea what I am voting for.

Either way, I flat out don't support price fixing which is precisely what MUP is.

dockysher · 01-05-2021 12:58AM

would have around 45 pints in about 2 hours

VinLieger · 01-05-2021 05:36AM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Oh, I did vote. But, for parties that are more tax payer friendly which I wont mention as my voting is confidential. I do read the manifestos to get an idea what I am voting for.

Either way, I flat out don't support price fixing which is precisely what MUP is.

Look I hate MUP but your all over the map with your righteous libertarian anger here, it's nothing close to price fixing however what it is is government unfairly supporting one portion of an industry over another.

ThunbergsAreGo · 01-05-2021 05:52AM

VinLieger wrote: »

You understand by not voting at all you are still supporting the status quo of the large parties you claim to be opposed to?

Well actually hes supporting nobody.
Feeling in the same position there is no party that appeals to me personally.

Opposition didn't exactly oppose this either

VinLieger · 01-05-2021 06:01AM

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Well actually hes supporting nobody.
Feeling in the same position there is no party that appeals to me personally.

Opposition didn't exactly oppose this either

By not voting at all you indirectly are supporting the winning result of any democratic vote be it a referendum or election. Far too many people do not understand this and think not voting at all is some kind of protest when it actually just shows ignorance of the democratic process.

The poster has further clarified they just didn't vote for a major party though.

Yes I'm surprised at the likes of SF supporting this but it unfortunately shows how effective the anti fun brigade have managed to present this as a health issue when it has nothing to do with it.

ThunbergsAreGo · 01-05-2021 06:10AM

VinLieger wrote: »

By not voting at all you indirectly are supporting the winning result of any democratic vote be it a referendum or election. Far too many people do not understand this and think not voting at all is some kind of protest when it actually just shows ignorance of the democratic process.

The poster has further clarified they just didn't vote for a major party though.

Yes I'm surprised at the likes of SF supporting this but it unfortunately shows how effective the anti fun brigade have managed to present this as a health issue when it has nothing to do with it.

Ah ok, you had specifically mentioned not voting supporting the status quo. It is indirectly supporting any winner you disagree with.

We don't really do opposition in this country at the moment, just nodding dogs doing whatever the latest "experts" or NGOs decide

Wanderer78 · 01-05-2021 06:15AM

VinLieger wrote:

By not voting at all you indirectly are supporting the winning result of any democratic vote be it a referendum or election. Far too many people do not understand this and think not voting at all is some kind of protest when it actually just shows ignorance of the democratic process.

People should have the right not to vote, by not doing so, can mean anything and nothing, we should of course encourage people to vote, as voting is a critical part of the democratic process, shaming those that do not probably isn't a good approach to encouragement!

VinLieger · 01-05-2021 06:37AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

People should have the right not to vote, by not doing so, can mean anything and nothing, we should of course encourage people to vote, as voting is a critical part of the democratic process, shaming those that do not probably isn't a good approach to encouragement!

No, of course you can vote if you don't want to but not voting at all as a protest against the bigger parties, that i have seen people claim to do, is moronic because in reality you are only helping them by not voting for whatever independent candidates that might be opposing them.

If the independent candidates don't light a fire under you either that's fine too but then you aren't voting as no politician appeals to you and not as some kind of silly protest.

Anyway this is way off topic.

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments